170,000 In Iraq. 170,000 In Iowa.

Tonight, the voters speak for the first time.

Sitting here in Des Moines, an observer obviously, there is a quietness today that happens when all of the polling stops, all of the ads seemingly go by the wayside, the punches and counter-punches end, and Iowans tonight will bundle up and go to caucus.

I thought about what I hope for tonight, and what I think it matters.

The numbers in the title were where I settled.

Today, in Iraq, around 170,000 men and women will lace up their boots and go to work, go on patrol, and hope to survive the day and their tour.

Last time the Democrats caucused in Iowa, 140,000 Iowans showed up, so this time, with predictions being for a higher turnout, we could actually see a remarkable parallel - 170,000 cold and shivering Iowans here, 170,000 brave American men and women there.

Iraq is my issue.

It was my issue in 2004, and it will be my issue until every single soldier comes home. It is my issue for so many reasons, many personal. It's my friendship with men like Jon Soltz, Jon Powers and Paul Reickhoff men who served there and came home.

It's my friendship with women like Maureen Shay Palmer, whose son served there and didn't make it home.

And it's my friendship with men like Bobby Muller, John Kerry, Paul Nace, David Thorne, Tommy Vallely, and especially Max Cleland, men who served in Vietnam and made it home though of course Bobby and Max paying a greater price for their service than the others.

Every day, every week, every month we are in Iraq is a mistake. A tragedy of increasing proportions, financially and morally. When I see Republicans talk about Iraq and then about their religious bona fides, I wonder what Jesus says about an immoral war, a war of profit and business, a war of choice.

I have been frustrated by what the Democrats in DC have not done about the war this year. I suppose like many I have come to the conclusion that the issue is not so much figuring out right from wrong as it is figuring out where to find the courage to do what's right.

It's right to leave Iraq.

Now.

Paul Nace, mentioned above, taught me the real lesson of Vietnam, far better than the ones I learned studying the books of historians like Stanley Karnow.

The real lesson of Vietnam is that for all of our power and might and military superiority, when it comes to intersecting ourselves in the course of events in another country, we can not force an outcome. It's like fighting the ocean. You can build walls, and try to ship in sand and rebuild beaches, but the ocean is always going to win.

In Vietnam, the North and the South were going to have to settle their differences, they were going to have to essentially fight it out and determine their collective future. If the French had left and we had not gone in, they would have settled it in the 1960s. If LBJ, who knew the war was lost in the mid 1960s, had withdrawn, they would have settled it in the 1970s. As it was, they settled it in the 1980s.

In Iraq, the Iraqis have to settle their issues. Will it be bloody? Yes. Will it be painful to watch? Possibly. Is it inevitable that at some point Sunni and Shia will have to band together or break apart in different countries? Yes.

Now, a year from now, or 10 years from now, that is inevitable.

Sooner is better.

My frustration with the candidates has been the willingness of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton to treat Iraq just like every other issue. I won't rehash their positions or statements, but there are sites that do.

It is more than fair to say that their positions have changed. And that concerns me, almost as much as it does that two of the three voted for the war in the first place, and that they didn't read the intelligence before they voted for the war.

I have also been frustrated by Democrats and by bloggers who say they want to end the war, and then strongly, emotionally and sometimes unreasonably support a candidate who doesn't really have a plan to end the war.

So what would I do tonight?

I would stand up for Bill Richardson.

He was, clearly, the first and clearest out of the gate with a plan to get out of Iraq. Spare me the comments and the trolls, he was. End of story.

He has the most experience internationally. I found the debate between Obama and Clinton unintentionally humorous. Both are great candidates, but neither has any foreign policy experience.

I also think Bill Richardson is great on global warming, the best. (And that's my other issue.)

Not one vote has been cast.

Not one poll matters worth a damm.

It's right to stand up and get us out of Iraq.

Good luck tonight Governor.

Follow James Boyce on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamesboyce

Comments

[xrayman]

Richardson is reported to be "brokering" a deal with Obama, which, in my mind, means that he thinks Obama is going to win the nomination and is looking to be included in his cabinet.

This is apposed to Kucinich who telling his supporters to go with Obama after the first vote, not brokering a deal.

I agree with Dodd that it is a slap in the face of supporters to tell them who to go for in the second round.

I am a Clinton supporter, but my second choice right now would be Edwards. If Clinton told me to vote for Obama second, I might just change my vote to Edwards on the first round.

I don't think voters are sheep to be herded around.

[cmj1981]

Democrats need to give it rest on Iraq. As long as Bush is President the war will continue.

No matter how many bills Harry Reid sends to the President, or how many press conferences Nancy Pelosi has, the war will go on.

You guys lost. Your not gonna be able to end the war no matter what. You almost had a shot at it, but unfortunately for you the surge is working beautifully and will continue to work.

Your gonna have to find a new cause to get behind, because this whole anti-war thing isn't working out to well for you.

There are still plenty of "progressive" causes to march on and blog about. Gitmo is still operating, our torture program is going strong, and the NSA is watching me type this, and watching you read it.

To continue to talk of ending the war in Iraq is just a waste of breath, which is only contributing to climate change.

[Tecumseh]

James Boyce, how can John Kerry be your friend? He ran for president, didn't pledge to end the occupation, and didn't even bother to count his votes before conceding. Slap him in the face and ask for your campaign contributions back. So much for your judgment!

[texanna]

I agree with you about Richardson's position on the war, which has made me wonder about the buzz that he's going to tell his supporters to go with Obama as a 2nd choice. Obama, like Hillary, has said that we would have a presence in Iraq for an indeterminate period of time. Changing the mission to a training mission is still us in the middle of their business. So, what's up with Richardson if he does this? It's just as inauthentic as Kucinich sending his supporters to Obama. It seems a sell out to me on both of their parts; an attempt to play the odds and somehow keep in play.

[cheforacle]

I do believe the war in Iraq is the most important and that's why I support Obama; he had the foresight to oppose it when it really mattered - and when few politicians opposed it - before it was launched.

I was considering supporting Richardson because of his voluminous experience but when he came it with his withdrawal plan I concluded the rate of withdrawal would put our troops (and the Iraqis) in greater danger than GWB already has. A withdrawal has to be done at the right pace or we could incur even more casualties than we already have. History is replete with disasters caused by hasty retreats. Obama's plan -which has not changed - is to remove 1 to 2 brigades (I believe a brigade has 3500-4000 troops) per month. This is a reasonable polciy that ensures the withdrawal is orderly, puts Iraqis on notice we're leaving and they have to take over their own security and ensures our guys don't incur greater risk as they leave. A withdrawal is not a simple process. It must be done orderly and systematically to work properly. I have enormous respect for Gov. Richardson but most military experts (that I have heard ) believe his plan is unworkable.

[yappnmutt]

i can't understand peopel who can't understand the neccessity of staying in iraq. the coalition forces have a responsibility to protect the iraqi people from themselves. it only makes sense that we stay there and kill more iraqis because if we don't kill them they will kill each other. the iraq war is a peace mission, a courageous humanitarian effort. we may have to keep killing iraqis for years until they are all gone in order to prevent them from killing each other.

[esl]

My sentiments are the same as yours. I've been to DC in two peace marches, participate locally in every anti-war demonstrations, and have had quite a few anti-war letters to the editor published. In 2004 I sent money to Kucinich every month. When it became obvious that there is no difference in what the three leaders have to say about Iraq, I made the decision to vote for Clinton. As a babyboomer woman I am so tired of men running every thing. Wages for women are still not equal, mothers still carry the load in the family, and our country is virtually ruled by white men. I urge everyone to give a woman a chance.

[NABNYC]

Actually Edwards is the only one of the top three with a real commitment to end the war. So why is Richardson telling his people to support Obama, who has no intention to end the war? And who has taken no leadership whatever in the Senate to try to end the war?

As for the consequences of the Bush Regime war against the middle east, we should anticipate decades of negative fall-out. That doesn't mean we should stay. It will happen. We can't make it not happen.

If we shot up our neighbors' home and killed their kids, destroyed what they owned, what's the likelihood we can then make friends with them? We can't. They will be pissed. Probably forever. Them's the breaks.

That's what we get for a Congress too cowardly to perform its own responsibility to declare war only against a nation that attacked us, and to not declare war against a nation that did not do one thing to hurt the U.S. (Iraq).

Want an Empire? Get a time machine and go back to Rome. Want a Democracy? Get a time machine. Empire and democracy do not mix.

Corruption undermines the ability of a democracy to create a government that serves the people. We have corruption at all levels of our government.

Why is it that Edwards it the only major candidate that speaks about that elephant in our living rooms? Corruption, bribes, payoffs, gratuities paid to our politicians. We actually need a third time machine to go get Elliott Ness and arrest and throw all of them in prison. Then we can start over.

[ChiMan1]

End the War! End the war! End the war!
Blah! Blah! Blah!
Go spread this message where it might make a difference, try Syria for starters . . .
or just SHUT UP! already

[PaulAbrams]

Poignant. And, the willingness to treat Iraq just like another issue by Clinton, Obama and Edwards, is worse than tragic. It conveys a message that their election, their perceived viability, their cleverness in nuancing "all combat troops" to convey the misimpression that they are talking about withdrawing ALL troops, but having the fallback position when the radical righties attack them that they really did NOT mean ALL troops, is more important the lives and limbs of the people that have been sent there in our name.

Richardson has a clear, unambiguous plan to withdraw ALL our troops (not just combat troops) within a year or less. The key difference between Richardson's position and all the others (Biden included) is that it is NOT dependent on what the Iraqis do or do not do. So long as any plan depends on Iraqis' actions, it is no plan for withdrawal, just a subterfuge.

Are the people of IA going to let this subterfuge stand? Or, will they send a clear message, as clear as Richardson's on the Iraq War, that they want it over, period.

The way to do that is to caucus for Richardson. I hope my IA brethren do that.

[Merlin7]

Ironically, the main beneficiary of our Iraq invasion is Iran. Not only is the Maliki "government" strongly influenced by Iran but an Iran-surrogate group controls southern Iraq.

In essence, the U.S. fought a very costly war on behalf of Iran, whose influence has been expanded exponentially. And now the neocons and their Democratic enablers want to raise the ante by expanding the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, which is even more of a quagmire than Iraq is. I suppose there's a lot of money to be made by some people . . . and Afghanistan soon will be the only war we have left, so I suppose the neocons feel obliged to milk it as long as possible.